site banner
PaperclipPerfector  4mo ago (text post)   25692 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 1, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This isn't true. In western society that remark is hyperbole and we all know it, because nobody here is forcing tradition and religion down people's throats at gunpoint.

This subthread is not about Western society, it is about Iran.

He asked what a more traditional solution sounded like. Well, I gave him one. Current trends and demographics seem to be making the case that the latter is the more attractive long-term option.

Iran - society with all drawbacks of modernity and none of its benefits - is not attractive at all.

If your solution is Iranian one, it is unsatisfactory.

This subthread is not about Western society, it is about Iran.

Is Iran forcing women to have sex at gunpoint? They've done that no more than Japan, Russia, China or the west has.

Iran - society with all drawbacks of modernity and none of its benefits - is not attractive at all.

And all to its own activities in the world, I'm sure. Not the fact that there's an economic war being waged against the country. Which absent wealth, what else does modernity have to give?

If your solution is Iranian one, it is unsatisfactory.

Iran may be down in the 4th quarter, but they know they're on the field and can at least find the ball. Other nations are living on borrowed time and unless they get their head on straight, they'll be in an even more precarious position than Iran is.

Is Iran forcing women to have sex at gunpoint? They've done that no more than Japan, Russia, China or the west has.

Iran is enforcing all the online trad wish list - no porn, no homosexuality, no fornication, no adultery, no no-fault divorce (on woman side), no indecent clothing, no women's (or men's) rights in general. We were told it would result in happy wonderland full of big happy families. Somehow, it happened otherwise.

So that would be a "no" then.

In your opinion, should the mullahs try harder? Should they do more?

Assuming they could try harder - remember that Iran is country with massively disaffected populace, with regular riots and urprisings with death toll in the hundreds. Country more like Tsarist Russia than Stalin's one.

In your opinion, should the mullahs try harder? Should they do more?

Evidently so, if current policies are ineffective. But short of applying direct force, this is a problem virtually every developed and semi-developed country on Earth doesn't have a solid proposal for. If people's own choices can't reliably produce an outcome, and coercion can't reliably produce an outcome, all that remains is to institute more crushing and draconian penalties.

Assuming they could try harder - remember that Iran is country with massively disaffected populace, with regular riots and urprisings with death toll in the hundreds. Country more like Tsarist Russia than Stalin's one.

Your link doesn't work properly. And the same incidentally could be said of many western countries, where suicide rates are up, there's a great sense of apathy in the population, I'm told we've never been closer to fascism and wages have stagnated considerably for the past forty years. I'm sorry, but reports of America's death have been greatly exaggerated, all other problems considered. You'll forgive me if I'm not going all in on Iran, either.

Evidently so, if current policies are ineffective. But short of applying direct force, this is a problem virtually every developed and semi-developed country on Earth doesn't have a solid proposal for. If people's own choices can't reliably produce an outcome, and coercion can't reliably produce an outcome, all that remains is to institute more crushing and draconian penalties.

So the mullahs are weenies, so your plan for creating perfect trad society is more prisons, more torture and more executions. Your proposed solution is you and few hundred thousands of Revolutionary Guards (how many of them would be wiling to obey?) waging full scale war against the whole population (while Iran is indeed surrounded by enemies willing to exploit the opportunity).

Good luck with your plan.

And the same incidentally could be said of many western countries, where suicide rates are up, there's a great sense of apathy in the population

LOL. People willing to do this are anything but apathetic. Especially when they know they will not get slap on the wrist like BLM, when they know they can be shot or tortured to death. The Iranian government wishes the people were "apathetic".

So the mullahs are weenies, so your plan for creating perfect trad society is more prisons, more torture and more executions. Your proposed solution is you and few hundred thousands of Revolutionary Guards (how many of them would be wiling to obey?) waging full scale war against the whole population (while Iran is indeed surrounded by enemies willing to exploit the opportunity).

You're the one using all this value-laden, disparaging language, not me. I never said anything at all about a comprehensive set of solutions, save for pointing out that apparently Iran doesn't an overall plan that works. The most I ever said if you go back to my original post, was that Iran sanctioning the death penalty for adultery was merely "a step in the right direction" to start with. And what's the serious objection to that? "I won't get married if I get the death penalty for adultery!" Well why the hell would you get married in the first place, if you plan to commit adultery? But if I can't even open my mouth without you trying to shove something in it, then there's little point for further discussion on the matter.

LOL. People willing to do this are anything but apathetic. Especially when they know they will not get slap on the wrist like BLM, when they know they can be shot or tortured to death. The Iranian government wishes the people were "apathetic".

Ah, well if we can cherry pick examples to our liking, there are plenty of places in the US that resemble third world countries.

Yes, you said that death penalty for adultery is small step in right direction.

For comparison, in US it would mean executing 15% of adults. Without putting anything into your mouth, I fail to see your "final destination" as anything other than Himalaya sized mountain of skulls.

Ah, well if we can cherry pick examples to our liking, there are plenty of places in the US that resemble third world countries.

Now show places in US with regular armed uprisings against US government with death tolls from hundreds to thousands.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats